Anda di halaman 1dari 2

(1) In a lawyer client relationship, the power of attorney i.e.

Vakalatnama does not

constitute in itself a contract, but there exists an implied contractual relationship
between the petitioner and his client. A Power of Attorney includes any instruments
empowering a specified person to act for and in the name of the person executing it.1
The performance of the contract may be possible when the contract entered into but
because of some event, the performance may subsequently become impossible or
unlawful. Following provision is made regarding validity of such contracts:2
(2) A contract to do an act which after the contract is made, becomes impossible or, by
reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent, becomes void when the
act becomes impossible or unlawful.3 It means that every contract is based on the
assumption that the parties to contract will be able to perform the same when the due
date of the performance arrives.
In this case, the petitioner was not expecting such conditions which transpired due to the
strike of the PPBA . The obligation of the advocate to stand up for his own cause made it
impossible for him to attend his clients case. The contract between the petitioner and the
advocate stands void. Hence, there is no breach of contract as it had already become void.
There was no intention on the part of the petitioner to conceal the fact of impossibility to
reach the Court on the day of hearing. It is evident that the strike was state-wide and the
judiciary of Paschim Pradesh was badly paralysed. 4Also, that TV interviews and public
demonstrations made clear the impact of the strike and the agenda of the members of Bar
Association. The principle of Caveat Emptor is invoked here. The client must have had a
concern for his own cause and should have been aware of his attorneys recent and
previous engagements.
It has also been held by the Court 5, that where the court is satisfied that the ex parte order
(passed due to the absence of the advocate pursuant to any strike call) could be set aside
on terms, the court can as well permit the party to realise the costs from the advocate

Section 1A, Power of Attorney (Amendment) Act, 1982
Dr. R.K. Bangia, Law of Conracts- I, 6th ed. (2009)
Sec. 56, Indian Contract Act, 1872
Moot Problem
Roman Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Subhas Kapoor (2001) 1 SCC 118
without driving such party to initiate another legal action against the advocate. It is
humbly submitted that the order of the High Court of PP is liable to be quashed as the
Court has unnecessarily burdened the petitioner with fine as well as the contempt